PUBLICATION: The Associated Press State & Local Wire
DATE: March 21, 1999
SECTION: Washington Dateline
BYLINE: Laurence Arnold
DATELINE: Washington, DC
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Pamela Barsam-Brown, executive director of the New Jersey Coalition Against Air Noise
The Associated Press reports a New Jersey group has hired a law firm to battle all expansion at Newark International Airport until the issue of air noise is resolved.
According to the article, Jane Garvey, administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, said, "It's very difficult to find a solution that satisfies everybody. Every time you move (traffic) from one area to another, you create another problem." Newark International Airport handled 462,000 flights in 1997. In New York, LaGuardia Airport handled 355,000 and Kennedy Airport 352,000. Depending on its takeoff or landing route, a given plane can spread noise in central New Jersey, northern New Jersey, neighborhoods along the Jersey shore, Staten Island or Queens. Garvey says a federal redesign of air space is tackling the New Jersey-New York region first, and that a combination of improved routing and better engine technology will gradually reduce the noise. But Pamela Barsam-Brown, executive director of the New Jersey Coalition Against Air Noise, is tired of waiting. She said the air space redesign could take more than five years. On Friday, the coalition announced it has hired a law firm that battled expansion plans at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport to do the same thing at Newark. "The bottom line is, we're going to initiate action to thwart all growth at Newark Airport until the issue of air noise is resolved," Barsam-Brown said.
The article reports the solution favored by Barsam-Brown is being pushed in Congress by Rep. Bob Franks, R-Berkeley Heights, and others. Franks wants to force federal officials to conduct a six-month test of a new route that would send ascending airplanes out over the Atlantic Ocean. The Franks bill, introduced last month, has the support of Reps. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-Harding; Marge Roukema, R-Ridgewood; and Rush Holt, D-Pennington. But the FAA's Garvey says ocean routing would increase departure delays and cluster planes in a potentially dangerous manner. Designing a safe test of ocean routing, she said in a recent letter, "would take years to complete" and thus delay the national air space redesign. Democratic Rep. Bob Menendez of Union City, the most outspoken opponent of ocean routing in the New Jersey delegation, says the plan would also send more planes over cities in his district, including Carteret, Elizabeth and Woodbridge. And Rep. Steve Rothman, D-Fair Lawn, has expressed concern that some potential ocean routes would increase noise in 13 towns in Bergen and Hudson counties. "The congressional delegation should get together in a room and just dig in and figure out what they can all agree on," Barsam-Brown said. "Because some noise abatement is better than no noise abatement."
The article states there has been some consensus on air noise, as well as some small victories. The New Jersey delegation rejected a six-month test of an airplane route designed to let westbound planes climb higher and faster. The test, which ended in September, produced protests from New Jersey communities. Seven members of the House delegation signed a letter urging Garvey to abandon any further consideration of that route. In another noise victory, at the request of New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Transportation Committee, Congress last year allocated $3 million to fund the redesign of air routes over New Jersey and New York - the first installment of $11 million for the national redesign. Lautenberg also won a $100,000 grant to a research arm of New Jersey's air noise group. The money will fund technical analysis of government data. Furthermore, New Jersey Sen. Robert Torricelli tried last year to transfer responsibility for air noise from the FAA to the Environmental Protection Agency by re-establishing a noise abatement office at EPA eliminated by Congress in 1982. Torricelli's measure failed in the Senate. He plans to propose something similar this year - giving air noise responsibility to an existing office at EPA. Also, Torricelli is introducing a bill calling for a nationwide study of pollution by airports, including noise pollution.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: March 21, 1999
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 11; Metro Desk
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Paul Willems, resident
The Los Angeles Times published the following letters from Los Angeles area residents about voters' rights in the wake of new and expanded airports. The first letter is from Leonard Kranser of Dana Point. Kranser writes to clarify the Safe and Health Communities Initiative:
"The Times seems to have difficulty coming up with a good, short headline reference for the Safe and Healthy Communities Initiative. The Times' March 11 descriptor, "supermajority," never appears in the initiative, and that is not what it is about. The initiative does call for a two-thirds vote of the people for approval of new or expanded large jails in residential areas, new or expanded airports, or toxic landfills. However, it also says that the people would adopt the initiative, with or without the two-thirds ratification vote, if a court ever rules against that provision.
"That is why we urge everyone to read the initiative for themselves online at http://www.safe-and-healthy.org. The Safe and Healthy Communities Initiative is a good planning measure, which holds that no Orange County neighborhood should be forced to accept these projects unless there is wide agreement that they are necessary. The initiative sets out a planning process wherein projects are evaluated, public hearings are held, and then the people vote. Most important, the initiative is a voters' rights measure. The short, four-page measure speaks of the people, the public, taxpayers, residents and voters and their rights more than 20 times."
The second letter is from Charles Young of Irvine. Young asks for a cost analysis comparison between expansion of John Wayne Airport and building a new commercial airport at the former El Toro Marine base.
"It would be a wasteful shame to unnecessarily duplicate the excellent infrastructure that already exists or is under construction at John Wayne. As an example, what would be the cost to build runway extensions at John Wayne, cantilevered over Bristol Street and the Corona del Mar Freeway to the south and, if necessary, over a new San Diego Freeway underpass to the north? Certainly, such construction would have a significant cost; but how would that compare to the cost of building an entire airport from scratch at El Toro, or anywhere else, for that matter?
"I think that the Board of Supervisors, if it is really acting in the best interest of the county, owes us such an analysis. Absent that, perhaps there are other groups that could voluntarily generate a rough comparison of costs."
The third letter comes from John Jaeger of Irvine who muses about airport NIMBYs in South County. Jaeger writes:
"My friends and neighbors don't want to expand the Musick Jail, preferring instead to have about 30,000 convicted criminals every year released before serving their sentences. Some 'justice.'
"Nor do the South County NIMBYs want El Toro Marine Corps Air Station converted to a civilian airport. Better, they say, to drive to Los Angeles or Ontario or even Riverside on congested freeways. Better to litigate for the next 50 years, according to Larry "The Lawyer" Agran. Better to overturn the democratic results of not one but two separate elections approving El Toro international airport, first in 1994 and then in 1996.
"Voter nullification, litigation, phony excuses by the hundreds, there is nothing NIMBYs won't do because, in the words of presidential apologists, 'they want to win too much.' Irvine is too 'good' to be burdened by these offensive developments. Sniff. 'Environmental racism,' anyone?"
The last letter was written by Paul Willems of Laguna Niguel. Willems calls for the release of all pertinent noise data with regards to John Wayne Airport so that voters can make an informed decision about the proposed El Toro Airport. Willems writes:
"The Board of Supervisors finds it necessary to promote a $3-million flight demonstration even though the test data are too unreliable to be part of the airport master plan and the environmental impact report. Referring to a simulated noise study, they indicated that neither homes nor people are within the so-called noise -impacted area surrounding an El Toro airport. The board contrasted these 'favorable' findings with John Wayne Airport, where, according to the same study, 120 homes and 300 people are impacted by its noise contour.
"If these findings indeed reflect reality, why does John Wayne remain such a major threat to the people in Newport Beach? The fact is that serious noise complaints documented for the past 20 years extended far beyond the so-called acceptable noise -impacted area surrounding John Wayne. Moreover, most complaints come from areas where the noise is only half of what the county considered to be acceptable.
"Is it not curious that the board withholds the most relevant and tangible information from the public? It is time to question the credibility of the county's planning process.
"Henceforth, I am challenging the Board of Supervisors to immediately disclose for public review all empirical noise data as they relate to John Wayne Airport."
PUBLICATION: Orlando Sentinel Tribune
DATE: March 21, 1999
SECTION: A Section; Pg. A1
BYLINE: Jim Stratton and Mary Brooks
DATELINE: Orlando, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Peter Latham, member of the Lake Cherokee historic district in Orlando; Daisy Lynum, member of Orlando City Council; Bill Jennings, head of a committee studying the project; Frank Shelton, resident
The Orlando Sentinel Tribune reports while the effort to rebuild Florida's Interstate 4 focuses on alleviating rush-hour traffic, residents along the highway fear increased noise, and isolation created by sound barriers.
According to the article, local leaders see the I-4 expansion project as a means of preventing the stalling of the region's economic engine. Each year rush-hour standstills along I-4 get worse. But in communities along the interstate, most residents are focused on what the construction will mean for their neighborhoods. Residents worry about the noise a bigger highway will bring. They're concerned about the number of homes and businesses the expansion will destroy. And they fear views of downtown will be spoiled by a raised new highway and the sound barriers that might be placed on top of it. Of the I-4 proposal, "It's hitting people a bit like a train wreck," said Peter Latham, of the Lake Cherokee historic district in downtown Orlando. The project will expand Central Florida's most notorious road to eight lanes. In some places, the work will radically change the look of the interstate, raising it by 20 feet or topping it with 20-foot sound-barrier walls; sometimes doing both. In others, the road will grow wider, bringing thousands of cars closer to backyards. Additionally, retention ponds needed to hold stormwater runoff from the highway may mean hundreds of homes and businesses would have to be bought and razed. Depending on the road's final design, up to 595 houses, apartments or businesses could be lost. Transportation planners say that's a relatively small number given the project's gargantuan scale, and that the figure could decline.
The article reports that's little consolation to residents now living near I-4. Orlando City Council member Daisy Lynum represents residents in the Holden Heights and Parramore areas. Lynum worries the widening will chip away at neighborhoods already living in the shadow of I-4 and the East-West Expressway. Parts of the Holden-Parramore area, now hemmed by the interstate and expressway, could be surrounded by noise walls on three sides. Jay Hood, a landscape architect and urban design expert with a local planning firm, said walls can heighten a neighborhood's sense of isolation. And when that happens, he said, "those neighborhoods may start to decline." That's Lynum's fear. "I've not met anyone in the neighborhood who's happy about this," she said. "It's not OK to create this kind of havoc in the community." Sound walls could line the interstate from Lake Ivanhoe to Fairbanks Avenue, creating what some have grimly called "The Great Wall of Orlando." Their design has not yet been determined, but generally, the more attractive the barrier, the more expensive it is to build. No matter how they look, the walls would change the views of many College Park residents. "People will be living next to that wall," said Bill Jennings, a resident who heads a committee studying the project. "The impact to this community would be tremendous."
The article states while some Florida residents oppose sound walls, others were upset to learn that their communities might not get walls. Sound barriers are designed to reduce the amount of road noise filtering into neighborhoods. To determine which areas get sound walls, officials consider how much the barriers would cost per each home that would benefit. In parts of Seminole County, home lots are big, which means fewer houses in a given area. So the cost per home of sound walls is too high for current federal standards. In other words, high-end developments might be out of luck. "You're saying the more expensive the neighborhood you're going past, the less likely they can be shielded by a wall," said Frank Shelton, a longtime resident of Markham Woods. "That's wrong!"
According to the article, the I-4 project is a potentially political risk for Orlando Mayor Glenda Hood. One of Hood's most popular platforms has been her emphasis on protecting and reviving neighborhoods - especially those close to downtown. Yet the I-4 project cuts into key neighborhoods in the city's core. Residents say the mayor must be careful. There is a sense among many that their quality of life is being sacrificed to satisfy suburban commuters. To that end, the city is urging engineers to consider designs that would reduce the project's impact on the communities it passes through. So far, the FDOT has been willing to consider ideas coming from Orlando officials. Even some project critics say planners seem interested in working with neighborhoods. That said, no one expects the I-4 expansion to be comfortable. "It's a large, cumbersome process," FDOT spokesman Homan said. "The key thing is you just keep trying to minimize the impact as much as possible."
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: March 27, 1999
SECTION: Gilbert Community; Pg. Ev1
BYLINE: Edythe Jensen
DATELINE: Gilbert, Arizona
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Steve Urie, resident
The Arizona Republic reports a group of residents is seeking monetary damages from the town of Gilbert, Arizona, for failing to enforce its own rules about airport disclosure.
According to the article, more than 170 homeowners representing nearly 100 properties have filed a $7.9 million claim against the town for what they say are reduced property values resulting from Williams Gateway Airport overflights. Phoenix attorney Richard Mack filed the claim Wednesday. "We tried to meet with the town and work this out, but they turned their backs on us," resident Steve Urie said, one of the claimants. Claim documents refer to the Gilbert council's 1995 adoption of a resolution that calls for special provisions for construction within the airport influence area. Provisions include public notification and home construction standards designed to soften the impact of noise. The town failed to enforce that resolution, the claim states. Both Urie and claim documents refer to a public admission in September 1998 by Town Manager Kent Cooper that the town failed to enforce provisions of the resolution until 1997.
The article reports Cooper said Friday that the resolution is a policy, not a law, and represents the council's efforts to protect Williams airspace. He said the town had no legal responsibility to inform home buyers about the airport. The resolution "was a good-faith effort to come up with some way of informing future homeowners, and it wasn't implemented as well as we'd have liked," Cooper said. "But it was a voluntary action on our part. It certainly isn't our responsibility under state statutes to notify anybody about anything when we buy a home. We are not a party to those transactions."
The article states Urie holds the town responsible for not requiring builders to disclose the airport's use or to use construction techniques that muffle flight sounds. "I was told (by a sales agent) that the airport was closed, and it was going to be an ASU East campus and low-income housing," he said. Urie said he never would have bought his home had he known it would be four miles from a commercial airport. Urie said residents have asked town officials to scale down airport operations, stop expansion, or compensate residents. He said if the claim is not paid, they will file a class-action lawsuit against the town.
According to the article, Mayor Cynthia Dunham said Friday that the town never tried to hide the airport and is supportive of an airplane noise study for the area. Town Attorney Susan Goodwin said Gilbert has 60 days to respond to the claim, which has been submitted to the town's insurance carrier for review. Under state law, the residents are required to file a claim before suing.
PUBLICATION: The Associated Press State & Local Wire
DATE: March 27, 1999
SECTION: State And Regional
DATELINE: Seattle, Washington
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Cathryn Vandenbrink, chairwoman of Sound Rights
The Associated Press State & Local Wire reports proposals to reinforce noise regulations for nightclubs in Seattle neighborhoods are not sitting well with a number of club owners.
According to the article, some neighbors have complained about rising decibel levels, litter, traffic congestion, and rowdiness associated with nightclubs. The resulting proposals to toughen noise, drinking, and entertainment regulations have many club owners in Belltown, Capitol Hill, Pike Place and Pioneer Square on the defensive. "It feels like we are under siege in the city right now," said Tina Bueche, co-owner of Dutch Ned's. Cathryn Vandenbrink, chairwoman of Sound Rights and a 13-year resident of Pioneer Square, is among those advocating for limits on sound levels from any source. "No one wants to put clubs out of business," Vandenbrink said, "but people have to confine entertainment so it does not intrude on other people's lives." Officials say few clubs would have anything to fear from the proposed changes, but well-established owners say the proposals would hold them responsible for actions beyond their control. "We've taken steps to insulate our sound. We've got good security teams inside. We show concern for what happens outside," said Jeff Steichen, who runs the Showbox near Pike Place Market, "but any ordinance that makes you responsible for what happens 50 or 100 feet outside your club is hard to deal with."
The article reports an ordinance proposed by City Attorney Mark Sidran and scheduled for City Council action next month would make it easier to halt entertainment at bars blamed for noise, traffic problems, litter and crime. The Washington State Liquor Control Board is considering a similar measure that would give inspectors the power to limit or revoke the liquor license of clubs linked to off-premises problems. Last month, the municipal Department of Design, Construction and Land Use proposed new noise standards that club owners fear would leave them vulnerable to steep fines and criminal citations. For example, police officers could write tickets on the spot, rather than first issuing warnings based on decibel measurements. All the proposals would make it easier to suspend or revoke a club's liquor or entertainment license.
The article states a task force that included club owners, neighborhood activists and city officials failed to reach agreement, leaving the issue up to the City Council. Tina Podlodowski, chairwoman of the council's public safety committee, questioned whether clubs should be punished for off-site problems. "With (Sidran's proposal), we are licensing music, and music doesn't cause problems - alcohol does," she said, "and that belongs to the liquor board." Sidran disagrees. "What sense does it make to license a nightclub that creates this giant sucking sound of police resources?" he asked. "If you say the clubs have no responsibility, then you are saying the police and taxpayers have the responsibility."
According to the article, it's no coincidence that the most attractive downtown neighborhoods have the most clubs, restaurants and galleries, said Rick Wyatt, owner of the Fenix, a mainstay of the Pioneer Square club scene. "It's the reason they were attracted here in the first place," Wyatt said. "Unfortunately, they came during the afternoon. They didn't realize that at night, thousands of people from around Puget Sound come here to recreate as they have for decades." In response, Sidran points to a stack of boxes he amassed in battles to close Celebrities and the Iguana Cantina, the scenes of killings and sources of hundreds of 911 emergency calls. He said club owners should be held responsible for trouble caused by patrons in the surrounding neighborhood. Owners contend that they don't have the power to control patrons once they're off the property.
PUBLICATION: European Report
DATE: March 27, 1999
SECTION: No. 2394
DATELINE: Brussels, Belgium
According to the European Report, the US Transportation Secretary told the press in Brussels that the airplane-hushkit dispute between the US and the European Union risks a new trade dispute
The article reports speaking to the press in Brussels on March 24, Rodney E. Slater said the hushkit dispute was bad news for US/EU air relations and risked sparking off a new trade dispute. Stating that "threats don't help anyone," Slater said the US had made every effort to find a solution to the hushkit dispute under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Questioned about how soon the US would use retaliatory measures against the EU, Slater said the possibility of the US banning Concorde flights over its territory has to be ratified by the Senate, and must get the okay from President Clinton.
The article states meanwhile the European Union is determined to get this piece of legislation on the statute books. They claim that residents of airport neighborhoods have suffered more than enough, and will welcome this relief, however minor. The belated reaction by the US Administration has been criticized, as has US inertia on these matters within the International Civil Aviation Organization. The aircraft in question will be scrapped by all airlines by 2002. For the European Commission, which is currently drafting a White Paper devoted to the environmental impact of air transport, there is no possibility of reining in a universally well-received measure which will be a first step towards a more lasting airport capacity management.
The article reports US Transportation Secretary Slater's visit has, however, had a beneficial side-effect for the European Union: Slater has pledged to hold more frequent discussions with the European Union on all the US/EU air transport issues. Slater has invited Commissioner Neil Kinnock and EU Transport Ministers to the autumn general meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organization, to discuss the possibility of adopting international standards, in particular on aircraft noise.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: March 27, 1999
SECTION: Part A; Page 2; Foreign Desk
BYLINE: Carol J. Williams
DATELINE: Berlin, Germany
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Hugo Lyse Nielsen, member of the Danish Environment and Energy Ministry; Hartmut Ising, researcher with the Federal Environmental Agency's Institute for Water, Soil and Air Hygiene; Kyriakos Psychas, noise project manager at the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen; Bernd Wolff, Berlin resident
The Los Angeles Times reports noise is a problem in all major cities in Europe, and environmentalists and social scientists believe the shrieks and roars of urban life may cause serious long-term health effects.
According to the article, in the more than nine years since the Berlin Wall fell, traffic has grown exponentially as more drivers and truckers from across Europe use Berlin as a through route. That has jacked up the noise level at dozens of high-traffic sites in Berlin to levels that exceed accepted safe limits and are contributing to the growing volume of noise pollution on the Continent. German environmental authorities have documented a greater risk of heart attacks among people exposed to excessive noise, and they are finding new evidence of noise's long-suspected ill effects on sleep and emotional well-being.
The article reports studies of the lifestyles of German cardiac patients has shown approximately a 25% greater chance of heart attacks among those whose work or home environments were persistently exposed to noise above 65 decibels, says Hartmut Ising, a researcher with the Federal Environmental Agency's Institute for Water, Soil and Air Hygiene who has pioneered inquiries into the physiological effects of noise exposure. "Before, experts throughout the world accepted that noise annoys people and, if loud enough, can lead to deafness, but otherwise it has always been thought to have no effect on the body," says Ising, who has long believed otherwise. An 11-year research project involving more than 1,000 heart patients found that noise, especially when it disrupts sleep, produces stress hormones that accelerate aging and heart disease, Ising says. However, further study into the heart risks is needed to convince industry and urban planners that action must be taken to reduce noise levels in busy cities, says Ising. Normal traffic generally produces noise of about 70 decibels, while heavy traffic reaches levels of about 90 decibels. A chain saw's noise measures about 105 decibels.
The article states scientists from all 15 European Union countries who are drafting a common noise policy estimate that excessive noise costs governments as much as 2% of gross domestic product in lowered productivity, increased accidents, and more-frequent illness. "Governments could actually save money if they reduced noise in the most affected areas, but we are a long way from getting politicians to understand this," says Hugo Lyse Nielsen of the Danish Environment and Energy Ministry, which is coordinating the EU noise policy project. Unlike water and air pollution, noise emissions disperse quickly, and their long-term influences on society are harder to track, Nielsen says. Eighty million people, or about one in four EU residents, suffer noise exposure that affects their job performance, he says, citing the first results of the group's research into noise hazards. Another 170 million Europeans live in borderline areas where traffic, construction, and aircraft noises only occasionally exceed the accepted 65-decibel "safe" limit. Most of those areas are expected to get worse as travel and transport on the Continent continue to increase. The EU project was launched only two years ago when EU bureaucrats in Brussels began the quest for harmony among their member states' regulations and measurements of noise. "The biggest problems are, logically, in the biggest cities--London, Paris, Rome, Berlin," says Nielsen, noting that no comparative noise index has been established yet but that one of the EU group's tasks will be to map sources of noise and volumes. Most city noise comes from automobile traffic, and Nielsen notes that car use in most major European cities continues to climb despite efforts to encourage more reliance on mass transportation. However, islands of serenity exist in some urban centers, such as Copenhagen, where 50% of the work force walks or rides a bicycle to work, and much of the rest commutes by train or bus.
According to the article, although public tolerance of environmental disturbances is low in Northern European countries, noise researchers are finding less concern--and less willingness to fund improvements--in the EU's Mediterranean member countries. "In Italy, Greece and Spain, people have lived for a long time with higher noise levels because of the number of motorcycles and air conditioners," says Kyriakos Psychas, noise project manager at the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen. "Perhaps because these are sources that are seen as improving the quality of life, fewer people are bothered by them." Getting people to comply with noise regulations under such circumstances is difficult, Psychas says, unless other inducements are used. In Athens, he says, police managed to get compliance with motorcycle speed limits only when stiff fines were imposed on violators. Perception of noise also can be influenced by such factors as the desirability of the activity generating it, researchers say. Denmark's thousands of modern windmills emit a loud hum, but Danes tend not to complain because they find it preferable to the quieter but unwelcome option of nuclear power, Nielsen says. Still, northern member states of the EU assign higher value to urban quiet. In Germany, laws governing the larger cities usually restrict hours when apartment dwellers can run water or flush toilets and forbid the disposal of glass, metal and other trash late at night or on Sundays. Even smaller towns tend to have hours for the use of lawn mowers and other noisy outdoor equipment.
The article reports in litigious Germany, urbanites irritated by the escalating noise of city life are increasingly resorting to lawsuits to vent their frustration. "The city shouldn't allow so much traffic onto such a narrow residential street," contends Bernd Wolff, whose second-floor apartment in Berlin is passed every day by 60,000 cars taking a shortcut between two major freeways. "I know city life is never completely quiet, but this is ridiculous. And there's a very simple solution--close the autobahn exit." Wolff is one of dozens of Berliners who have filed suit against the city, alleging dereliction of duty by urban planners. Like most other litigants, he says he remains fairly healthy but worries about the long-term effects of living with constant noise above the 65-decibel level. City authorities, however, say that resolving one neighborhood's noise problems would simply transfer the noise to another locale. "If you prohibit traffic from using Street A, it just moves on to Street B. It doesn't disappear," says Karl-Heinz Winter, an advisor with the city's Agency for Construction, Housing and Transport.
The article states Berlin government officials point out that much has been done to reduce traffic noise. German and EU regulations now limit both exhaust and noise emissions from new cars, trucks and aircraft, although no regulations have been imposed on the predominantly state-owned railroads in the region. Some inner-city neighborhoods and busy freeway interchanges that abut residential areas are under "night-driving bans," which prohibit heavy trucks between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Similarly, night-flight bans are in effect at two of Berlin's three airports, Tegel and Tempelhof, says Werner Bochynek, a municipal official charged with balancing environmental considerations with the need for landing slots. However, Berlin's numerous construction projects promise to keep the volume on high for the next five to 10 years, as the old cobblestone streets of the eastern areas are upgraded and widened, and as buildings that were left to deteriorate for four decades are renovated or replaced.
According to the article, those studying Berlin's evolution in a united Europe see no relief ahead for the more disturbing problems of road and air traffic noise. "Very little of this is temporary," Michael Zschiesche, a lawyer with Berlin's Independent Institute for Environmental Issues, says of the rising noise levels since East Germany was absorbed into the West with reunification in 1990. "And reversing the course is going to be very difficult. Even if traffic could be cut in half, noise would be reduced by only about 3 decibels. That's nothing," he says.
PUBLICATION: The News and Observer (Raleigh, NC)
DATE: March 27, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Joanna Kakissis
DATELINE: Raleigh, North Carolina
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Lisa Chase, president of the Brentwood Neighborhood Association
The News and Observer reports Raleigh, North Carolina, leaders said they tried to balance concern for neighbors' peace and quiet with the needs of a lively urban life when they drafted a revised noise ordinance.
According to the article, after more than three years of research, Raleigh officials say they have transformed an outdated ordinance that unfairly punished business owners. Their proposal allows the city to target the most common noise complaint - low-frequency bass sound - and levy stiffer fines against places that play music too loud. The ordinance addresses granting entertainment II permits, which allow bars, clubs and other establishments to provide any kind of amplified music. "I think it's a pretty balanced way to address the concerns," said Julian Prosser, the city's administrative services director, who helped City Attorney Thomas McCormick, the ordinance's main author, with the issue. "We did a fairly deft job of reviewing the existing regulations and proceeded to address those problems."
The article states business owners are more pleased than homeowners about the proposed law which the City Council is scheduled to vote on in early April. "It's about time. Now at least I can have an acoustic guitarist here without having anyone yell at me," said Vic Calonder, owner of Vic's Italian Cafe and Pizzeria in City Market, one of downtown's most popular night spots. "I like that they got rid of the petty rules and the trivial requirements." Last year, the city forced Calonder to stop live music because a neighboring resident at Founder's Row condominiums called the police after a night of hard rock. The city discovered that Calonder didn't qualify for the entertainment permit because his club was, among other things, too close to homes. John Watkins, the Founder's Row homeowner who complained about Calonder's too-loud music last year, said he's cautiously optimistic about the new law. "If he plays the kind of music he played before, he'll break the decibel meter, so I'm not worried [about the proposed new law's enforcement]," Watkins said. "The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I'm not going to make an issue out of this if he complies with the ordinance as it's rewritten."
The article reports for other Raleigh residents, the elimination of a distance requirement between businesses and homes is a main sticking point. Currently, that requirement is 1,000 feet. City leaders like Councilman Kieran Shanahan, who heads the Law and Public Safety Committee, and Mayor Tom Fetzer have said the distance requirement did little to cut noise problems and unfairly punished business owners who operated quietly. The cities of Durham and Chapel Hill don't have distance requirements for entertainment establishments, instead letting city planners decide, through zoning, where to divide nightlife from home life. If noise exceeds a certain limit, then police get involved. Durham and Chapel Hill officials say they've had no burgeoning noise problems because of a lack of a distance requirement. Raleigh leaders say their new law wouldn't lose any power by taking out this requirement. Instead, the law would allow police to write on-the-spot citations by monitoring noise with devices that can also detect low-frequency bass sounds. The first offense in a 12-month period would cost a business owner $ 500, the second $1,000, and the third $5,000. Four offenses in 12 months would result in a one-year suspension of the entertainment license. In addition, police would be able to monitor noise in an establishment's parking lot. Under the proposed ordinance, patrons would have to leave the parking lot no more than 30 minutes after the establishment closes or at 3 a.m., whichever comes first.
According to the article, some residents say they are unsure whether the city can enforce these policies. They want the distance requirement back in the law. "The fact that they took out the 1,000 feet altogether is unbelievable, because we believed it was some measure of protection," said Lisa Chase, president of the Brentwood Neighborhood Association. Chase has organized a letter-writing campaign to City Council members, who she hopes will vote down the ordinance or at least consider inserting a distance requirement. At the very least, Chase said, the City Council could consider modifying the definition of an entertainment establishment to include only nightclubs or "other places that are rowdy and where wild partying is going on." Chase added, "They don't have enough manpower to enforce this," she said. "If they could expand the number of people to enforce the law, then maybe this would work. But inspections are months behind and our police force is understaffed. So how can it work?"
The article reports some business owners, as well, are questioning whether how they can realistically control behavior and noise in their parking lots, especially considering the number of people who pour out at closing time. "I don't see how the club can be held responsible for that," said Johnny Walters, owner of the Plum Crazy nightclub near Brentwood, an establishment that has drawn criticism from neighbors and city politicians because of noise and violence problems. "If you have over 2,000 people and you have a facility that has to clear at 3 a.m. and you dump them out on the streets, it's just going to create chaos and create a worse problem."
PUBLICATION: The Seattle Times
DATE: March 26, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. A1
BYLINE: J. Martin McOmber
DATELINE: Seattle, Washington
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Cathryn Vandenbrink, chairwoman of Sound Rights; Mark Sidran, City Attorney
The Seattle Times reports as a result of increasing complaints, Seattle and Washington state regulators are considering new noise, alcohol and entertainment regulations that club owners fear could ruin their livelihood.
According to the article, Seattle club owners say they are under assault. Meanwhile, ever increasing noise, trash, traffic and rowdy patrons are getting on the nerves of the city's burgeoning growing urban neighborhoods in Belltown, Capitol Hill, Pike Place and Pioneer Square. "It feels like we are under siege in the city right now," said Tina Bueche, co-owner of Dutch Ned's club in Pioneer Square. The Seattle City Council is scheduled to decide next month whether to change the way the city licenses music and other entertainment at clubs. As proposed by City Attorney Mark Sidran, the Added Activities ordinance would make it easier for regulators to shut down entertainment at bars that cause noise, traffic, litter and crime in a neighborhood. The Washington State Liquor Control Board is considering a similar measure, called "Livable Neighborhoods," that would grant inspectors the power to limit or revoke the liquor license of clubs that cause off-premises problems. Last month, the city's Department of Design, Construction and Land Use proposed new noise standards that club owners fear would leave them vulnerable to steep fines and even criminal citations. The changes would allow police officers to write a ticket on the spot rather than first issuing warnings based on decibel measurements. Officials say the majority of clubs are well-run and have nothing to fear from the proposed changes. But even the most respected nightclub owners say the new regulations would make them responsible for events they can't control and could leave them at the mercy of overzealous officials. "We've taken steps to insulate our sound. We've got good security teams inside. We show concern for what happens outside," said Jeff Steichen, who runs the Showbox near Pike Place Market. "But any ordinance that makes you responsible for what happens 50 or 100 feet outside your club is hard to deal with."
The article reports neighborhood activists such as Cathryn Vandenbrink, who has lived in Pioneer Square for 13 years, say it's about time club owners recognize the city is becoming as much a bedroom as a romper room. Vandenbrink is the chairwoman of Sound Rights, a citizens' group promoting limits on all kinds of noise, from club music to leaf-blowers. "No one wants to put clubs out of business," she said. "But people have to confine entertainment so it does not intrude on other people's lives." Club owners say they are feeling intruded upon themselves. It's not a coincidence that the most attractive downtown neighborhoods also are the ones with the most clubs, restaurants and galleries, said Rick Wyatt, owner of the Fenix. "It's the reason they were attracted here in the first place," he said. "Unfortunately, they came during the afternoon. They didn't realize that at night, thousands of people from around Puget Sound come here to recreate as they have for decades." The common thread running through all the proposed legislation is the impact nightclubs have on upscale neighborhoods. City Councilman Nick Licata likened it to the Wild West. "Once the settlers arrived, they wanted the good times to end." In that scenario, club owners consider Sidran to be the sheriff. The city attorney first unveiled his Added Activities License last year after the city's legal battle to close two clubs, Celebrities in Pioneer Square and the Iguana Cantina on the waterfront. He also has been a strong supporter of the liquor board's "Livable Neighborhoods" and of changing the noise ordinance to beef up enforcement. Sidran's proposal would hold club owners responsible for crime, noise, litter or traffic caused by patrons in the surrounding neighborhood. If a club couldn't get control of the situation, it would lose its entertainment license.
The article states club owners argue that clubs don't have the power to control how people act after they leave the property. No insurance company would cover bouncers patrolling streets and alleys. However, a task force that included club owners, neighborhood activists and city officials couldn't come up with a compromise, leaving the final decision in the hands of the City Council. Councilwoman Tina Podlodowski, chairwoman of the public-safety committee, said it would be difficult to punish clubs for problems that happen outside their property. "With Added Activities we are licensing music, and music doesn't cause problems; alcohol does," she said. "And that belongs to the liquor board." But Sidran disagrees with that line of reasoning. "What sense does it make to license a nightclub that creates this giant sucking sound of police resources?" he asked. "If you say the clubs have no responsibility, then you are saying the police and taxpayers have the responsibility."
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: March 26, 1999
SECTION: Metro Northwest; Pg. 2; Zone: NW; Overnight News
BYLINE: Morgan Luciana Danner.
DATELINE: Arlington Heights, Illinois
The Chicago Tribune reports a Chicago official on Thursday defended Mayor Daley's planned terminal expansion at O'Hare International Airport as one that will not increase noise.
According to the article, Chicago Department of Aviation Commissioner Mary Rose Loney on Thursday defended Mayor Richard Daley's planned $1 billion terminal expansion at O'Hare International Airport to Arlington Heights Village Board members and residents who questioned whether the plan means runway expansion and more noise. Residents are also concerned that federal transportation officials have also called for lifting the cap on hourly flights on O'Hare. Trustees asked for assurances that the expansion plan would not increase noise. About 15 citizens attended the meeting, and most expressed concern about airport noise. "What assurances do we have, and what assurances do the residents of the community have, that the number of flights will not increase because of your plan?" asked Trustee Dwight Walton.
The article reports Loney repeatedly insisted the increase in the number of flights was forecast at less than 1 percent per year. And no runways are in the capital expansion plan, she said. "I think we have made significant progress on noise reduction," Loney said, referring to the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission, a city-suburban coalition of school and municipal leaders in communities affected by airport noise. Loney said it is necessary for the City of Chicago to add gates and terminals for more international service in order to stay competitive with other airports. The expansion plan would allow international travelers to go through customs more easily before making connections with domestic flights.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: March 26, 1999
SECTION: Metro Lake; Pg. 2; Zone: L; Lake Overnight.
BYLINE: John Flink
DATELINE: Chain O' Lakes, Illinois
The Chicago Tribune reports a number of Illinois residents are protesting a new ordinance that regulates noise from boats.
According to the article, more than 100 people attended a Fox Waterway Agency Board meeting Thursday night to protest an ordinance passed last month that limits boat-generated noise on the Fox River and Chain o' Lakes. The ordinance prohibits boats from being equipped with a device that could allow boaters to sidestep state noise regulations by switching on a muffler when near a marine patrol unit and switching it off later. Many boaters complained that they need the switches in order to comply with tougher noise laws in other states, such as Wisconsin, when they travel. Many also contended that parties and other activities on the shore can be much noisier than power boats.
The article reports others objected to the idea that marine patrol officers would board their boats to search for violations. But Keith Nygren, McHenry County's sheriff, assured the group, "Come the first day of boating season, don't expect to see us chasing down high-performance boats and handing out tickets."
PUBLICATION: The Indianapolis News
DATE: March 25, 1999
SECTION: Metro North; Pg. N03
BYLINE: Katherine Moorhous
DATELINE: Noblesville, Indiana
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Leonard and Marge Selvaggio, residents; John Woerly, resident
The Indianapolis News reports Indiana residents who live along 146 Street are concerned with finding a way to minimize traffic noise when the new four-lane route is complete.
According to the article, residents of Village Farms subdivision told the Hamilton County Commissioners on Monday that they wanted a wall to block the anticipated noise on the road. Tuesday night, residents from Woodgate and Ash Creek told the County Highway Department that they, too, want protection from the sound of the increased traffic. "You've opened up a pipeline with a minimum of stoplights from (Ind.) 37 to (U.S.) 31. There will be so many trucks it isn't even funny," said Leonard Selvaggio of Woodgate. Selvaggio said the effect the new road will have on neighborhoods should be considered. "I'm concerned about what we're opening the door to. It's going to be a beautiful road for a trucker."
The article reports at Tuesday's meeting, the County Highway Department unveiled a landscaping plan for a section of 146th from Durbin Drive to Hazel Dell Parkway. The raised 14-foot center median will contain trees. The 15 residents attending the meeting did not object to the plans, but Selvaggio and his wife, Marge, questioned why no trees were planned along the sides of the street. "These could help provide at least a natural sound barrier," Marge Selvaggio said. Jim Neal of the County Highway Department said his department had asked the commissioners to include trees along the side of the road, but commissioners denied the plan due to costs. Neal also said the commissioners told him they didn't want to get involved with "a lot of conflict" regarding what types of trees would be planted along properties. Neal explained that planting trees along the side of 146th would further infringe on the property lines of residents, because the trees would have to be planted beyond the already expanded road right of way. "But that's exactly what we want," countered John Woerly of Ash Creek. "And, say, after one year, we would take care of the plants." Trees planted along the median will be cared for by the building contractor for one year. After that time, the trees will be under the discretion of the County Highway Department. Marge Selvaggio said she will continue to contact the commissioners to request a wall, brick fencing or at the very least the addition of trees for the side of the road to help with the anticipated sound problem and to enhance the aesthetics of the roadway. Neal said residents probably won't see a lot of heavy road construction until next year. Projected completion date for the project is June 2001.
PUBLICATION: Seattle Post-Intelligencer
DATE: March 24, 1999
SECTION: News, Pg. B2
BYLINE: Debera Carlton Harrell
DATELINE: Seattle, Washington
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jeanne Moeller, board member of the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs; Ann Harris, Highline School Board president
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports the Port of Seattle yesterday agreed to fund the noise study for Highline School District whose schools are seriously affected by noise from nearby Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
According to the article, the Port of Seattle will pay nearly the entire cost of a multiphase airport noise reduction study for Highline School District, ending years of sometimes bitter relations and providing hope for a long-term solution, officials said. The Port Commission voted 5-0 to reimburse $1.25 million to the district for the study. Spurred by a mutual decision to "put kids first," the port payment is the major share of the study's costs. A state grant will pay the balance of the costs, district officials said. The agreement reflects the port's recognition that the community should not have to pay to study a problem not of its making.
The article reports the study involves measuring noise levels and designing "acoustical treatments" for 15 schools identified as those most seriously affected by jet noise from nearby Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Eleven grade schools, one middle school, two high schools and a vocational school will be studied. The 15 schools were built before 1970, when the airport's second runway was built despite community objections. The cost of possible noise abatement remedies, from new windows and doors to air conditioning, will be determined in the third and final phase of the study, hopefully by summer, district officials said.
The article states the toughest negotiations are still ahead: Who pays for the recommended noise abatements? But officials from the port, school district, and School Board (as well as community members) expressed optimism that yesterday's agreement was a turning point. "This agreement is a very serious effort on the port's part to help resolve the noise situation. . . . We had hopes and dreams of this day for a long time," Ann Harris, Highline School Board president, said after attending the afternoon meeting at the port's headquarters. "There's an appearance of a willingness to work together and to collaborate that we hope will bear out in the future," Harris said. "I think there's good feeling among the elected officials in the two groups (School Board and port)." Port Commission President Pat Davis agreed. "This agreement is really a breakthrough in our ability to collaborate and cooperate, that says we can all sit down and talk about these things," Davis said. "It's very significant. It's historical in terms of overcoming serious obstacles over a long period of time." Davis and Harris said focusing on the students helped break down barriers of distrust between the port and Highline School District, as well as with the communities of Des Moines and Burien, which are heavily affected by the airport noise and traffic. "We never disagreed that this study was needed; we've just had different opinions on how to get there," Davis said. "I think both the port and Highline Schools want the benefits of insulation to come to the children. Eventually, that overrode everything." Nick Latham, spokesman for Highline School District, said the study's first phase cost $350,000 for noise experts to take decibel measurements of various schools and determine the list of 15 schools most affected. The remainder of the study's costs will go to the architectural and engineering firms Cornerstone and S.M. Stemper to analyze how changes can be made in those 15 schools to make classrooms more quiet.
According to the article, residents of Burien and Des Moines whose children attend Highline said yesterday's agreement could restore trust, and they were cautiously optimistic. "I hope they do it right. . . . If the port lives up to this agreement, it could be a positive thing for the community," said Jeanne Moeller, a board member with the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs, a citizens educational group. Moeller, a lifelong resident of the area whose eight children attended Highline schools and whose husband was a teacher in the district, has criticized the port and has been among those protesting a third runway. "We'll be watching this very closely," she said. Davis said the agreement was an honest effort to solve the effects of jet noise on classrooms and not a bargaining chip for a third runway.
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: March 24, 1999
SECTION: Opinions; Pg. B6
DATELINE: Scottsdale, Arizona
The Arizona Republic published a letter from Michael Straley of Scottsdale, Arizona. Straley accepts airplane noise as a given and believes related safety concerns in the Scottsdale area are exaggerated. Straley writes:
"General aviation airplanes and airports are not going away. There will always be airplane noise overhead ("Valley skies roaring," March 15). How in the world can a reasonably intelligent citizen buy a new house and not know there's an airport nearby? The sympathy quotient on that one is just about zero.
"At least one concession to noise complaints was missed in the article. Scottsdale has imposed a political weight limit on the runway that prohibits any airliner-size jets from using the airport. Scottsdale resident Don Hopkins is wrong about airport priorities. The absolute top item on every competent airport manager's list, and every competent pilot's list, is safety. Noise, however, probably is close to the bottom; a quiet airplane is usually not a safe airplane.
"Someday, an airplane will probably fall on a house somewhere in the Valley. That's too bad, but no mechanical/human combination is perfect. But there are many more threats to our Valley lifestyle than that airplane. Just read the car accident reports."
PUBLICATION: The Associated Press State & Local Wire
DATE: March 24, 1999
SECTION: State And Regional
DATELINE: Brooklyn Park, Minnesota
The Associated Press State & Local Wire reports while the Minnesota Orchestra won approval Wednesday for an outdoor concert amphitheater, it still faces a number of major hurdles, including obtaining a noise variance.
According to the article, amphitheater opponents have promised to take their case to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency when hearings on a noise variance are held in the near future. A noise variance is vital for the amphitheater's operation. Opponents contend that noise from the approximately 50 concerts a year at the 19,000-capacity amphitheater would disturb surrounding neighborhoods. That includes Brooklyn Park neighborhoods and others in Osseo, Champlin and Maple Grove.
The article reports David Hyslop, the orchestra's president, said the amphitheater's sound levels would be the most closely monitored in the country. As part of an agreement with the city, sound from concerts would be monitored within 100 feet of the mixing board and as many as five noise-monitoring stations would be required on the property. In addition, the orchestra would pay to have sound engineers monitor noise four times a summer in adjoining neighborhoods. Any concert continuing beyond 10 minutes of the nightly curfew -- 11 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11:30 p.m. Friday and Saturday -- would incur a $2,000 fine. City officials said there would be few exemptions to the curfews.
The article states amphitheater opponents, however, said city officials will be hesitant to enforce noise restrictions because the city will be receiving substantial annual payments in lieu of property taxes from the nonprofit orchestra. Under an agreement with the city, the orchestra will be paying $510,000 a year to Brooklyn Park by the facility's third year. However, Hyslop vowed, "We are not about to compromise our reputation on a project that doesn't work."
PUBLICATION: Canada NewsWire Ltd.
DATE: March 24, 1999
SECTION: Domestic News
DATELINE: Toronto, Ontario CANADA
Canada NewsWire Ltd. published a press release by the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) detailing the planned departure trials for the new north/sough runway at Lester B. Pearson International Airport, (LBPIA). The press release reads as follows:
"The Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) in conjunction with NAV CANADA has released details of the planned departure trials for the new north/south runway at Lester B. Pearson International Airport, (LBPIA). The trials, to be conducted on Saturdays between March 27 and April 24, will test a proposed departure procedure to route aircraft operations over industrial corridors.
Weather and operational conditions permitting, the tests will be conducted between 9:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. and again between 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. each Saturday, with the exception of Easter weekend.
"Currently, the new runway is used primarily for arriving aircraft during high northwest or southeast winds. However, because the older north/south runway will be closed for construction for three months beginning in May, the new runway will be used for departing aircraft when wind conditions dictate.
"The test, developed by NAV CANADA, will require pilots of departing aircraft to turn to the west upon reaching 500 feet and climb along an industrial corridor in order to avoid overflying residential areas close to the airport. The tests will determine both the navigational and operational procedures and the noise mitigation effects in the Mississauga and Brampton communities.
"'The GTAA decided to conduct these tests on a Saturday in order to get as much feedback from the community as possible,'" said Steve Shaw, Vice President of Corporate Affairs and Communications for the GTAA. "'We are committed to our noise mitigation program and this test, if successful, could be a significant step in our noise reduction mandate.'" The departure trial has been endorsed by the councils of Mississauga and Brampton.
"Community Feedback Outlets : 1. For the Saturdays during the trial period, the Noise Management Office's phone line will be staffed from 9:15 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. The GTAA invites community members to call the office at (905) 676-4531 or (416) 247-7682 and provide feedback about the degree of change in noise levels, and offer any other comments about the test. 2. An information flyer, distributed to homes in the surrounding area, will contain a short questionnaire designed to determine the community's reactions to the test. 3. The GTAA Web site, gtaa.com, will have information on the trials and a copy of the feedback form.
"In addition, the airline pilots flying the departure procedure will submit an evaluation of the flight path from their perspective. Based on information gathered from both sources, the GTAA and NAV CANADA will evaluate the effectiveness of these new departure procedures. These trials are part of the Authority's ongoing efforts to minimize noise impact on the airport's surrounding residential communities. The GTAA is committed to making LBPIA a better airport for all of its constituents. For further information: Steve Shaw, (905) 676-3709."
PUBLICATION: The Daily Oklahoman
DATE: March 24, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. 9
BYLINE: Jack Money
DATELINE: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
The Daily Oklahoman reports Oklahoma City Council members said Wednesday they are willing to go to court if necessary to stop overnight dirt work near a northeast neighborhood.
According to the article, Ward 2 Councilman Eric Groves met with reporters Friday to voice residents' complaints. The council voted to allow potential court action at the urging of Groves, who represents the 408-home Wildewood neighborhood disturbed by the dirt removal work. Groves told council members he wanted to be sure developers take the city seriously. He said the goal was to make sure that no activity on the site happened between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. "As things stand now, the noise of this operation throughout the nights has made it impossible for my constituents to enjoy the comfort and serenity of their homes," Groves said. Mayor Kirk Humphreys said he hoped contractors could work the situation out with the city and residents, without going to court.
The article reports a representative of contractors removing dirt from land five blocks east of Interstate 44 and Broadway said the night work stopped last week. Tom Waldron, a consultant working for developer Sapphire Properties, said the overnight work was halted after Councilman Groves called to say residents had a problem. Waldron said he would have told Groves about that decision but was not given an opportunity. Sapphire is using the dirt as fill material for its $40 million shopping center at Belle Isle Station between Penn Square Mall and the Belle Isle neighborhood.
PUBLICATION: The Hartford Courant
DATE: March 24, 1999
SECTION: Town News; Pg. B1
BYLINE: William Weir
DATELINE: Clinton, Connecticut
The Hartford Courant reports the town of Clinton, Connecticut, is writing a noise ordinance in response to residents' complaints.
According to the article, complaints about late night parties and early morning garbage collectors have prompted town officials to draft a noise ordinance. First Selectman James McCusker Jr. said he has been preparing a draft of a proposed ordinance designed to keep noise levels down. To date, he said, he has collected ordinances from several other towns. McCusker said he hopes to have a proposal complete within the next few months. "The issues that come to my attention are the workers who start in the early a.m. in a given neighborhood," he said, adding that garbage collectors are usually the targets of such complaints. In some cases, McCusker said he has spoken to the companies himself about the complaints and usually some type of solution is reached. "Anything that adversely affects the quality of life of people in town needs to be addressed," he said. McCusker also noted that complaints to his office start to become more frequent in the spring and summer when residents hold outdoor parties or drive cars with the windows down and their radios up.
The article reports McCusker admits that creating the ordinance and enforcing it could be complicated. To become official, any noise ordinance must first be approved by the state Department of Environmental Protection. To enforce it, the town would have to buy meters to measure the level of decibels in an area and train police officers on how to use the equipment. Police Chief Joseph Faughnan said the idea of an ordinance is worth considering, but that he doesn't know how effective it would be. When the police department gets complaints, he said, an officer will go to the site. In most cases, the subject of the complaint cooperates and no official action is taken. "We warn people, usually we don't take immediate action. If we hear about it again, we take action," Faughnan said. "We look more for compliance than enforcement."
The article states First Selectman Anthony Varrichio said the noise ordinance that was passed in his town of Cromwell about four years ago may have acted as a deterrent to potential noise makers. "It's not the simplest thing to enforce, but maybe it was the publicity, because we haven't had a problem," he said.
PUBLICATION: The News and Observer (Raleigh, NC)
DATE: March 24, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. B3
BYLINE: Joanna Kakissis
DATELINE: Raliegh, North Carolina
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Linda Miller, resident; Lisa Chase, president of the Brentwood Neighborhood Association
The News and Observer reports a Raleigh City Council subcommittee Tuesday endorsed, on a split vote, a noise ordinance that would allow music-playing businesses in neighborhoods.
According to the article, if the council approves the measure April 8, it would eliminate a requirement that requires 1,000 feet between homes and the door of any establishment with music. In addition, business owners applying for permits to allow amplified music wouldn't have to require musicians to play at least 12 feet from any entrances, and wouldn't have to make major modifications to their buildings to drown out the noise. The ordinance was supported by Councilmen Kieran Shanahan and Brad Thompson, who both said they don't believe the distance requirement mitigated the noise problems, but that it perhaps has punished some business owners who operate their clubs quietly. The "no" vote was cast by Councilwoman Julie Shea Graw, who wanted the distance requirement and insisted several times during the meeting that an entertainment establishment has no place anywhere near a residential neighborhood. "Is a large club appropriate in a residential setting, be it 500 feet or 200 feet?" Graw asked her fellow council members. "That should be the question."
The article reports Graw's comments were with approval from neighborhood leaders observing the committee meeting. Many attended expecting to hear news of an ordinance that would restore quiet nights in their neighborhoods, and were openly angry about the unexpected turn of events. "Once again, the City Council has put the needs of the businesses ahead of the citizens," said Linda Miller, a longtime anti-noise activist from the Forest Acres neighborhood. "The distance requirement would have cut some of the noise problems in half." Some people, including members of the Brentwood Neighborhood Association, wanted the distance requirement increased from 1,000 feet to 1,000 yards. The Brentwood residents say they have suffered from loud crowds coming out of the Plum Crazy nightclub. Lisa Chase, president of the association, said she plans to discuss the issue at the North Raleigh neighborhood's meeting Thursday and hopes to organize the residents to convince the council to vote down the proposed ordinance.
The article states Shanahan called the concern about the distance "a tempest in a teapot." He said the ordinance will allow noise in overly loud clubs to be monitored more carefully by police, who will use instruments that can measure even low-frequency sounds such as the chest-thumping rhythm of deep bass music. In addition, the measure would allow the city to police the noise in parking lots, which it couldn't do before, he said. Special-use permits would still be required for clubs featuring outdoor music, he said, but establishments with indoor music wouldn't need one. "Under the old law, Tir na nOg [an Irish pub in downtown Raleigh] couldn't have a guy strumming the guitar in front of a microphone, for God's sake," Shanahan said after the meeting.
According to the article, Miller said she is "disappointed but hopeful" about how the full council will vote in less than two weeks. "We are concerned over the city's abilities enforce this noise law," she said. "We know they are more than willing to enforce it, but do they have the resources to do it?"
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: March 24, 1999
SECTION: Metro Northwest; Pg. 1; Zone: NW
BYLINE: Rogers Worthington
DATELINE: Arlington Heights, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Stephen Daday, chairman of the Arlington Heights Advisory Committee on O'Hare Noise
The Chicago Tribune reports the board of trustees in Arlington Heights, Illinois, is closely watching the city-suburban O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission these days and voicing its concerns about noise.
According to the article, the village's board of trustees has decided to be more vocal on the subject of noise to the commission which is chaired by Arlington Heights Mayor Arlene Mulder. One trustee urged the commission's technical committee Tuesday to do more about noise reduction and less on informing the public with newsletters and web sites. "We'd like you to work on the issues that are the highest priorities rather than those that are most easily accomplished," said Stephen Daday, who also is chairman of the Arlington Heights Advisory Committee on O'Hare Noise. Accompanying him was William Enright, deputy director of the village's department of planning and community development.
The article reports Daday focused on the Fly Quiet program, which is supposed to reduce noise around O'Hare International Airport between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. by restricting flights to certain runways and flight paths. Daday said it doesn't appear Fly Quiet is taken seriously enough, at least not at the 10 p.m. curfew. Pilots, airlines, and air traffic controllers have repeatedly been urged to follow flight paths over forested, industrial, or paved-over areas, such as expressways and tollways to avoid sleeping residents. Daday said during 1998 and the first month of 1999, the designated primary Fly Quiet runways, 27L and 27R, were used only 20 percent of the time for nighttime departures, while the secondary runways, 32L and 32R, which aim toward parts of Elk Grove Village, Des Plaines, Mt. Prospect, Rolling Meadows and Arlington Heights, were used 36 percent of the time. "We keep saying this isn't a sprint, it's a marathon," Daday said. "The progress we're making is incremental and that's good. But if we're going to be marketing . . . noise abatement procedures, what we're looking for is . . . compliance. If that's not the case, let's not mislead anybody." Daday and David Strahl, Mt. Prospect's assistant village manager, said the beginning of Fly Quiet hours each night is violated frequently. "If we keep telling people we're focusing on Fly Quiet and it doesn't kick in until midnight, how much credibility does that have?" Strahl said.
The article states Deputy Aviation Commissioner Chris Arman countered that only a relatively small percentage of flights that take off on the 32 runways actually fly over Arlington Heights. Most are guided the right and the left. "To imply that they (Arlington Heights) are getting hit by each and every flight off that runway is inappropriate," he said. Arman and the airport's Fly Quiet director, Michael Dell'Orfanello, said they are aware there is difficulty in judging just when Fly Quiet begins. "There's not a bell that goes off in the tower at 10 p.m. that tells everyone it's Fly Quiet time," Arman said. But he and Dell'Orfanello said they were optimistic compliance would improve because several airlines have designated their own Fly Quiet directors to better implement the program. Dell'Orfanello and others at O'Hare are working on an evaluation of Fly Quiet based on personal monitoring of it from the tower during Fly Quiet hours. The report is expected to be completed by May.
PUBLICATION: The Boston Herald
DATE: March 23, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. 015
BYLINE: Laura Brown
DATELINE: Boston, Massachusetts
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jerome E. Falbo, resident
The Boston Herald reports supporters and opponents of a new runway at Logan Airport are expected to face each other this morning at a contentious Massachusetts' State House hearing on bills that would block the runway's construction.
According to the article, the runway's strongest supporter, Gov. Paul Cellucci, is expected to testify, along with Mayor Thomas M. Menino, who last week urged the state to build a second airport instead. The bills' chief sponsor, Winthrop Rep. Robert A. DeLeo, has filed similar legislation in the past, but the language took on new meaning this year, when the Massachusetts Port Authority started the environmental process to go forward with the runway. "There were always discussions about the possible expansion of Logan, and my feeling was Logan couldn't go on expanding," DeLeo said. "It's about time they looked at other alternatives." The most controversial of DeLeo's bills would bar the construction of a new runway, but separate legislation would limit other proposed improvements on the airfield and set up a commission to "maximize the use of regional airports." Other legislators from Chelsea, Revere, Boston, Quincy, Cambridge, Somerville, Hull, Dedham, Melrose and Malden are supporting the construction ban bill.
The article reports Massport Executive Director Peter Blute said he will attend the hearing to oppose DeLeo's bill. "We think the (environmental) process should be allowed to continue without intervention by the Legislature," he said. "It's a challenge to face state and federal regulators," he added. "On the other hand, regulators tend to deal with fact, not fiction." The runway - called 14-32 because it is lined up along the compass point 140 degrees in one direction and 320 in the other - would allow Massport to reduce delays during certain wind conditions. Massport officials have insisted that the runway would be used only in one direction, over the water, and would allow air traffic controllers to spread the noise around more evenly to impacted communities.
The article states opponents of the runway, who have organized a group called Coalition Against Runway Expansion, plan to attend the hearing to support DeLeo's legislation, members said yesterday. "We think this is one of the most foolish programs imaginable," said Jerome E. Falbo of Winthrop, where Massport has assured residents that noise will be reduced for the next few years if the new runway is built. "It's not going to accomplish anything in the long run," he added. "We know we're shifting the noise to another community, but we'll get it right back in five years anyway."
PUBLICATION: The Buffalo News
DATE: March 23, 1999
SECTION: Viewpoints, Pg. 3B
BYLINE: Ellen Goodman
DATELINE: United States
The Buffalo News published an essay pronouncing cell phones the boom boxes of the '90's, creating enough public noise to annoy and offend.
According to the article, cell phones are ringing and people are talking into them at restaurants, graduation ceremonies, on public transportation, and even in the theater. "By now there is hardly a person in the country who hasn't experienced cell phone abuse and inner rage. There are 66 million phones bouncing off satellites, and at any moment, I am sure, 10 percent of them are offending someone," according to the author. So much so that a New York commuter railroad company is considering a no-phone zone. The writer says, "It seems that the suburbanites who trek to the center of Manhattan every day did not suffer their phone rage silently. Surrounded by the chattering classes, they demanded the passenger's right to ride in a car without noise pollution. The presenting symptom was volume control." The spokesman for the train company said, "'For reasons that we can't figure out, people are hollering into their cell phones.'"
The essays states that cell phones have become the boom boxes of the 1990s. "Gray-flanneled men and women who wouldn't be caught dead carrying a boom box onto the commuter train carry a mobile voice box that disturbs the peace with equal disregard. The cell phone, however, has become a status symbol on par with the SUV."
The writer goes on to suggest, "[I]f cell phone rage is a reaction to noise pollution, I think it's also and more commonly induced by public space pollution. Not long ago, everyone was commenting on how the Walkman privatized the public world, turning people inward so they could waltz or rock through their community without being a part of it. Well, the mobile phone promotes a verbal gated community; you can shut out everyone around you. It's become a personal accessory that allows the oblivious to live in their own world."
The essay concludes with the author suggesting that the no-phone zone on the commuter train is just the beginning. "In Hong Kong restaurants, they already ask you to check the phone with your coat. What about a restaurant with two sections: Phone or no phone. And what about a no-phone lane on the highway? So far, the railroad is worrying about free speech issues. Can you ban talking?"
PUBLICATION: The Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville, FL)
DATE: March 23, 1999
SECTION: Metro; Pg. B-1
BYLINE: Dan Scanlan
DATELINE: Mandarin, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Rhonda Donovan, resident; Ann Lee, resident
The Florida Times-Union reports more fighter jets have been flying training exercises from Jacksonville Naval Air Station -- a situation that has prompted complaints from Florida residents to the Navy and elected officials.
According to the article, Rhonda Donovan says it has sounded like a war zone recently in the skies over her Mandarin home. Donovan, who lives on Beauclerc Oaks Drive, said she is used to four-engine P-3 trackers flying overhead. But in recent weeks, around dinnertime, jet fighters have roared so loud she couldn't hear. "It sounds like we are getting ready to go to war. We have had them in the past, but never this frequent and never this loud," she said. "It's deafening." Neighbor Ann Lee agrees. "If you are on the telephone, you have to wait until they go over," Lee said. "It just seems like there have been more than usual lately, and you always wonder what's going on when you see more than usual."
The article reports Jacksonville NAS spokesman Bill Dougherty said the base has received many complaints in the past few weeks. The additional jets, he said, were from two outside squadrons using the base for training -- on top of the normal schedule of jet training. "We had a training session. Another detachment, part of an exercise in Georgia, was using NAS for part of that," Dougherty said. "In that second exercise, they had Harriers and EA6 Prowlers and those can be louder than the ones we have out here, so you can attribute the noise to that. Beyond that, it is normal routine operations." Regular flights include the base's daily detachments of four-engine P-3s and DC-9 airliners. They also include 48 new S-3 Viking antisubmarine aircraft transferred there from the soon-to-close Cecil Field Naval Air Station. But in recent weeks, there were the additional fighter exercises and training sessions with smaller A-4, T-45 and T-2 jets, Dougherty said. Navy statistics show 7,262 flights took off or landed at Jacksonville NAS in January, less than the monthly average of 8,248 flight operations in 1998 and 8,728 in 1997. Those flights use two runways, one that can route aircraft over the Southside, the other that often routes them over Mandarin.
The article states Dougherty said people should realize Jacksonville NAS is an operating military base and there is going to be noise. "We are definitely concerned with what the community thinks, and if they call, we can react and we will find out who was flying," he said. "The good part is when you see a lot of aircraft, it is temporary. They come in, do their exercises and they leave."
According to the article, City Councilman Dick Kravitz said he complained to U.S. Rep. Tillie Fowler, R-Fla., since his Beauclerc neighborhood seems to be bearing the brunt of the noise. "I have heard an increase in jet activity and big jets, a lot of noise especially at night, which has never been," Kravitz said. "I want to find out what this is. It is right over lots of homes." However, in a prepared statement, Fowler said the planes fly over her house as well but said she is glad to hear them. A busy Navy base is "good news" whenever the Base Closure Commission comes "knocking at our community's door," she said. Jacksonville NAS has always been a good neighbor, she said, responsive to the community's concerns.
PUBLICATION: The Orange County Register
DATE: March 23, 1999
SECTION: Metro; Pg. B04
BYLINE: Mary Ann Milbourn
DATELINE: El Toro, California
The Orange County Register reports the proposed El Toro flight demonstration plan that will be considered by the California's Orange County Board of Supervisors is under criticism from opponents.
According to the article, the El Toro flight demonstration would take place over one of two weekends in June under a proposal from California's Orange County government staff. The plan, which will be considered by the Board of Supervisors on March 30, targets June 4-5 or June 11-12 as likely dates for the demonstration. "The primary purpose of the flight demonstration is to provide an opportunity for persons working and living in the general vicinity of El Toro to see and hear representative types of commercial aircraft in operation at El Toro," wrote Courtney Wiercioch, head of the county's El Toro reuse program, in a report to the board. At least five kinds of aircraft would land and take off up to six times each over a Friday and Saturday. There also will be some operations at night, when residents are most concerned about noise. Six airlines have offered aircraft for the demonstration. Eight noise monitors would be set up, at a cost of $100 per monitor.
The article reports because there will be relatively few flights, Wiercioch has said the noise testing would not be scientific. For that reason, airport opponents have criticized the demonstration as a waste of up to $3 million.
PUBLICATION: The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA)
DATE: March 23, 1999
SECTION: Local, Pg. B1
BYLINE: Vandana Sinha
DATELINE: Virginia Beach, Virginia
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dennis J. Borgerding, president of Salem Lakes Civic League; David O. Cutchin, resident
The Virginian-Pilot reports for the second time in as many years, GTE Virginia Beach Amphitheater officials have agreed to turn down the volume of summer concerts, but nearby residents say noise from the venue is still too loud.
According to the article, unhappy residents plan to speak out at tonight's City Council meeting. "I just don't want to hear it in my home," said David O. Cutchin, a Salem Lakes resident for 13 years. "We were here first." Amphitheater officials will program the sound equipment to blink yellow if the decibel level spikes to 98, and red if it reaches 100, the same sound level as a running chain saw two feet away. All materials the amphitheater sends to artists will feature the new limit which has been reduced by two decibels, said General Manager Mike Tabor. "We're doing the best job we can," he said. Residents admitted it's a "step in the right direction." But they want Tabor to reduce the limit by another two or three decibels. "It's a larger problem than people want to admit," said Dennis J. Borgerding, president of Salem Lakes Civic League, who lives about a quarter-mile from the venue. "I want (the amphitheater) to be a success. I want it to work. But I also want to be able to sleep at night."
The article reports with the two-decibel drop, existing traffic and community noise in some areas could mask the musical strains from the amphitheater, said two North Carolina sound consultants hired by the city to study the facility's noise levels. In other areas, it becomes a matter of individual perception. In part, the consultants recommended to the council in January acoustical improvements and a sound barrier, costing between $280,000 and $470,000. The changes would block at least three decibels of the music leaking into the community. Five decibels, they said, would make a noticeable difference.
The article states Councilwoman Nancy K. Parker is sponsoring the residents' appearance before the council. She said she hopes her colleagues will consider using money generated by the amphitheater - which was a little more than $1.2 million last year - to pay the bill for the suggested acoustical improvements. Agreeing with Parker, Councilwoman Barbara M. Henley said, "This is something the city caused. We should find a solution."
According to the article, Tabor said he would prefer not to lower the decibel level again because he must contend with artists, who don't want their performances to be restricted. He said it's too early to tell whether any acts will cancel for a scheduled Virginia Beach concert because of the lowered sound limits. "They're artists in the ultimate sense," he said. "They like total control over the product they deliver to the public." They are already accustomed to a 105-decibel limit, which is the national industry standard, said Frederick C. Shafer, one of the two sound consultants. In fact, concertgoers may be the ones feeling the impact, as background conversations, screaming audience members and Navy jets start to seem louder than before, said consultant Noral D. Stewart. To lower the music by five decibels, he said, "you have to eliminate 67 percent of the sound. . . . That makes it tough."
PUBLICATION: Waikato Times (Hamilton)
DATE: March 23, 1999
SECTION: News; National; Pg. 3; Brief
DATELINE: Hamilton, New Zealand
The Waikato Times reports an international acoustics expert says elementary students are adversely affected by classroom noise.
According to the article, many primary students are "completely disadvantaged" by excessive classroom noise. David MacKenzie, a lecturer at Edinburgh's Heriot-Watt University, led a three-year study in classroom acoustics in the UK and is currently visiting New Zealand. The quality of the acoustics were often dictated by classroom design and building materials, MacKenzie told the Auckland branch of the Acoustical Society yesterday.
PUBLICATION: City News Service
DATE: March 22, 1999
BYLINE: Dominic Berbeo
DATELINE: Inglewood, California
City News Service reports Inglewood, California, officials say their town in unfairly burdened with overflights from Los Angeles International Airport.
According to the article, up to 1,000 planes fly over Inglewood in a 24-hour period and that is plenty, Mayor Roosevelt Dorn said today. "We support regional expansion" of Los Angeles International Airport," Dorn said in a telephone interview. "But we don't want any more planes flying over Inglewood, period." Dorn said the Inglewood City Council passed a resolution last week asking Los Angeles officials to do what they can to stem the anticipated increase in the number of daily flights into and out of LAX. Within 15 years, he said, 60 million to 98 million more passengers annually will be coming through the airport. Dorn said the 1,000 planes that fly above Manchester Boulevard and just over the Great Western Forum each day to LAX, represent an "unfair burden" on residents and Inglewood's public safety services.
The article states Nancy Castles, public affairs manager for Los Angeles World Airports, said the city has spent more than $60 million over the past decade in a joint plan with the Federal Aviation Administration for soundproofing and noise mitigation projects in Inglewood. While an increase in flights is expected over the next 15 years, she said, much of the older, noisier aircraft will be replaced with cleaner, quieter planes.
PUBLICATION: The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
DATE: March 22, 1999
SECTION: News Pg.01b
BYLINE: Andrew Melnykovych
DATELINE: Louisville, Kentucky
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mary Rose Evans, president of the Airport Neighbors Alliance
The Courier-Journal reports a new noise study at Kentucky's Louisville International Airport is aimed at soothing eardrums as well as hard feelings that linger from expansion there a decade ago.
According to the article, both the 1988 airport expansion and a 1993 noise study ignored the surrounding community and left a deep-seated mistrust of the Regional Airport Authority, said Mary Rose Evans, president of the Airport Neighbors Alliance. The key to turning the relationship around is giving the airport's neighbors a real voice in the plan to address airplane noise, airport officials say. "What (airport neighbors) can expect to see is total involvement from the beginning to end," said Jim DeLong, general manager of the airport authority. "The process we've developed is going to be very open. The solutions that come out have got to be consensus solutions." The noise study will produce a forecast of noise levels for the year 2004 and try to find ways to minimize their effect on communities near the airport.
The article reports DeLong, who was hired last year, refuses to talk about the way the authority operated in the past. But he acknowledges that hard feelings have lingered since 1988, when the airport expansion - and the displacement of entire neighborhoods - was forced on the community as a done deal. Expansion of the airport displaced more than 1,500 families and scores of businesses. Another 1,000plus families became eligible for relocation because of excessive aircraft noise in the wake of the expansion. That's why community participation in this noise study is so important, DeLong said. Elected officials who represent the airport area say they are pleased with the way the noise study has been handled so far. "I think he's demonstrating that he really wants citizen input," Louisville Alderman Greg Handy said of DeLong. "So far, I'm really encouraged." State Rep. Jim Wayne, D-Louisville, also praised DeLong's efforts to involve the community. Handy and Wayne said changes in leadership at the airport authority have helped. The people most responsible for the airport expansion are no longer in charge. In addition, Wayne said, neighborhoods around the airport have become organized into "a force that the airport has to reckon with." That political clout was evident last year when Wayne persuaded the General Assembly over the airport authority's opposition to pass a bill that put a neighborhood representative on the airport board. That position is now held by Dorn Crawford. "I'm looking at this (noise) study as a crucial reconciliation effort and a healing process," Crawford said. The 1993 noise study contributed to the strained relations between the airport and its neighbors. It called for much less extensive relocation than airport neighbors believed was necessary, and the airport was criticized for inadequate plans to monitor airplane noise. Unlike many other airports, it does not use radar tracking systems, sound monitors or complaint logs. The 1993 noise study "was seen as being railroaded by the airport," Wayne said. "It was basically a show that they went through because the Federal Aviation Administration required it."
The article states neighborhood representatives have already played key roles in the new noise study, serving on committees that selected the consulting firm to work on the project. The screening committee included representatives from neighborhoods, area businesses and airport customers such as United Parcel Service. Ultimately, a smaller, but similarly broadbased, committee reviewed the candidates, selecting San Francisco-based Leigh Fisher Associates. DeLong said Leigh Fisher won the job in part because of its emphasis on public involvement in the noise study. That involvement will begin in a month or so, when a series of neighborhood hearings to discuss the noise plan will begin, he said. Leigh Fisher also will interview neighborhood leaders, airport users, control-tower and other FAA personnel and airport authority staff to put together a picture of the airport's current and projected operations. All of the data will be used to draw projected noise-impact maps for the airport in 2004, DeLong said. "Then the meat of the process begins," he said. "What can be done to reduce those noise impacts?"
PUBLICATION: The Associated Press Wire Services
DATE: March 22, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. A03
BYLINE: Laurence Arnold
DATELINE: Washington, DC
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Pamela Barsam-Brown, executive director of the New Jersey Coalition Against Air Noise
The Associated Press Wire Services reports a New Jersey citizens' group has decided to sue to stop all expansion at Newark International Airport until the noise issue is resolved.
According to the article, Federal aviation officials encourage patience, but those who live under the world's most crowded skies have run out. Newark International Airport handled 462,000 flights in 1997. In New York, LaGuardia Airport handled 355,000 and Kennedy Airport, 352,000. Depending on its takeoff or landing route, a given plane can spread noise to central New Jersey, North Jersey, neighborhoods along the New Jersey shore, Staten Island, and Queens. "It's very difficult to find a solution that satisfies everybody," said Jane Garvey, administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. "Every time you move traffic from one area to another, you create another problem." Garvey says a federal redesign of airspace is focusing on the New Jersey-New York region first, and that a combination of improved routing and better engine technology will gradually reduce the noise. But Pamela Barsam-Brown, executive director of the New Jersey Coalition Against Air Noise, said the airspace redesign could take more than five years.
The article reports on Friday, the coalition announced it has hired a law firm, which battled expansion plans at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, to do the same thing at Newark. "The bottom line is, we're going to initiate action to thwart all growth at Newark Airport until the issue of air noise is resolved," Barsam-Brown said. The solution favored by Barsam-Brown is being pushed in Congress by Rep. Robert D. Franks, R-New Providence, and others. Franks wants to force federal officials to conduct a six-month test of a new route that would bring ascending airplanes out over the Atlantic Ocean. But FAA's Garvey says ocean routing would increase departure delays and bunch planes in a potentially dangerous manner. Designing a safe test of ocean routing, she said in a recent letter, "would take years to complete" and thus delay the national airspace redesign. Democratic Rep. Robert Menendez of Union City, the most outspoken opponent of ocean routing in the New Jersey delegation, says the plan would also send more planes over cities in his district, including Carteret, Elizabeth, and Woodbridge. Rep. Steve Rothman, D-Fair Lawn, has expressed concern that some potential ocean routes would increase noise in 13 towns in Bergen and Hudson counties.
The article states there has been some consensus on air noise and some small victories in New Jersey. The New Jersey delegation rejected a six-month test of an airplane route designed to let westbound planes climb higher and faster. The test, which ended in September, brought loud protests from New Jersey communities. Seven members of the House delegation signed a letter urging Garvey to abandon any further consideration of that route. Additionally, at the request of New Jersey Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Transportation Committee, Congress last year allocated $3 million to fund the redesign of air routes over New Jersey and New York, the first installment of $11 million for the national redesign. Lautenberg also won a $100,000 grant for a research arm of New Jersey's air noise group. The money will fund technical analysis of government data. And New Jersey Sen. Robert G. Torricelli, D-Englewood, tried last year to transfer responsibility for air noise from the FAA to the Environmental Protection Agency by reestablishing a noise abatement office at EPA eliminated by Congress in 1982. Torricelli's measure failed in the Senate. He plans to propose something similar this year, giving air noise responsibility to an existing office at EPA. Also, Torricelli is introducing a bill calling for a nationwide study of pollution by airports, including noise pollution.
PUBLICATION: The Tennessean
DATE: March 22, 1999
SECTION: Local, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Jon Yates
DATELINE: Nashville, Tennessee
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Joy Baker, resident; Carl Harmon, resident; Charles Couey, resident
The Tennessean reports while the majority of houses in the noise contour map for Kentucky's Nashville International Airport have been soundproofed, some residents are still waiting on a list began in 1992.
According to the article, at nightfall, the planes come like waves, rumbles of sound that crest above Joy Baker's home. On clear evenings, the roar is enough to drown out the nightly news or halt, temporarily, her phone conversations. Seven years ago, Baker signed on to receive noise-reducing windows, part of a Metro-run program designed to minimize the impact of airport expansion. "I've been promised, promised, promised, promised, and you know what? I haven't gotten them," Baker said. "It just seems everyone around me has gotten theirs done except for me."
The article reports since the noise abatement program began in 1992, 6,380 homes have been fitted with the new windows, about 84% of the 7,554 homeowners who signed up. But 1,174 homes remain on the list. To finish the project would cost an estimated $2.5 million. In recent years money for the windows - which comes from Metro coffers - has ranged from $ 500,000 to $1 million, enough to put new windows on several dozen homes a month. Steve Neighbors, a development specialist with the Metro Development Housing Agency, said at the current rate, the project will take at least three years to complete, meaning some, like Baker, would wait a full decade for their windows.
The article states the city began working on noise reduction programs near the airport a full decade ago, when the airport was preparing to expand. Between 1989 and 1996, the airport spent about $90 million in federal grants and funds provided by the airlines to buy, help sell or insulate more than 4,200 homes considered to be too close to the noisy jets for comfort. The Community Sound Insulation Program, as it is known, began in 1992, targeting households that suffer from high noise levels but are not included in the Federal Aviation Association's noise mitigation area, meaning they aren't eligible for federal assistance. The program, hailed at the time as innovative, was initially funded from money raised through a user fee that air carriers paid to use the airport. That money, however, was used up by 1995, despite the fact Metro continued to expand the area in which homes could receive the windows.
According to the article, even without the noise-reducing windows, noise around the airport has decreased in recent years, in part due to reduced air traffic and less noisy, newly designed engines. By 2001, the FAA will actually reduce the size of Nashville International's "noise contours," the footprint showing average noise levels around the facility, by about one-half. Yet, for those who live near the airport without the new windows, the noise remains annoying. "I've been on the list forever," said Carl Harmon, who has lived on Barella Court for 11 years. Despite living more than two miles from the airport, noise from passing planes routinely rattles his windows and muffles the television. "I'm just waiting patiently," he said. "You know, the government promises you this, that and another thing, and then you never get it. It really irks you, but what can you do about it?" And the new windows do make a difference. Charles Couey windows were installed on his home March 1 after several years on the waiting list. "The night we got them my wife was on the phone long distance and she said, 'What's that noise?' I said, 'It's an airplane,' and she said, 'It doesn't sound like it used to.' " Not exactly the sound of silence, but not bad, either, Couey said. Either way, the window-muffled roar of a passing airplane would sound pleasant to Joy Baker's ears. "I try to be understanding about it," she said. "I hate to sound frustrated, but it's taken a long time."
PUBLICATION: The Boston Globe
DATE: March 21, 1999
SECTION: City Weekly; Pg. 2
DATELINE: Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts
The Boston Globe published a letter from Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts, resident Moira Raftery. In her letter, Raftery protests a new runway at Boston's Logan Airport where the congested city's citizens are already adversely affected by airplane noise. Raftery writes:
"The 62 percent of the residents statewide who supposedly support a new runway at Logan won't be living under that new runway. It is easy to support something that doesn't affect you. It is hard for people outside Boston to realize what it is like to have plane after plane go over your home and disrupt every bit of normal living you have.
"Has this 62 percent of people ever had the windows shake in their home, normal conversations disrupted, the inability to hear anything on the telephone, TV, or radio while a plane is going overhead? Have they considered the effect this noise has on the hospitals and schools (teachers have to stop teaching while a plane is above them), residents in nursing homes and children in daycare centers? These are people whose normal, everyday life is disrupted.
"And don't even think about using your yard in the good weather; the noise is enough to drive you crazy. The city is a congested area. You are exposing an incredible number of people to a disruptive life. I could go on and on but I'm sure you get the idea. I lived through the '70s and the hard work we did to alleviate airplane noise from the communities. I don't want that to happen again. I'm ready for the fight. Don't be taken in by Massport's soft-sell TV ads. Massport is only interested in the money it can make by more flights coming in and out of the city. They are not interested in the people who live in the city.
"It is time to give the Boston area a break and consider using airports in less congested areas."
PUBLICATION: Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
DATE: March 21, 1999
SECTION: Variety; Pg. 6E
DATELINE: Minneapolis, Minnesota
The Star Tribune published a column in which a question was asked about the specific causes of freeway noise.
"Q -- Does the type of road surface affect the noise coming from a freeway? What produces the most noise, the tires on the road's surface or the car motors? I've noticed that the noise of the freeway near my house is increasing.
"A -- Freeway noise is generated by the tires, engines and exhaust systems of vehicles, according to James W. Hansen of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Noise from autos is predominantly tire noise. If most of the vehicles on a roadway are automobiles, then the noise comes primarily from the tires on the pavement. Bituminous surfaces generally produce less tire noise than do concrete surfaces, he said. On freeways with truck traffic, the noise emission from trucks is greater than autos because it is produced by the combination of tire, engine and exhaust noise. Your general observation that roadway noise is increasing is true in most urban areas, Hansen said. That's because greater traffic volumes and higher speeds create more noise."
Previous week: March 14, 1999
Next week: March 28, 1999
Aircraft Noise
Amplified Noise
Effects on Wildlife/Animals
Construction Noise
Firing Ranges
Health Effects
Home Equipment and Appliances
Industrial/Manufacturing
International News
Environmental Justice
Land Use and Noise
Lawsuits
Civil Liberty Issues
Miscellaneous Noise Stories
Noise Ordinances
Noise Organizations Mentioned
Outdoor Events
Noise in Our National Parks/Natural Areas
Regulation
Residential and Community Noise
Snowmobile and ATV Noise
Research and Studies
Technological Solutions to Noise
Transportation Related Noise
Violence and Noise
Watercraft Noise
Workplace Noise
Chronological Index
Geographical Index